Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Tue, 13 March 2018 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B50126DFB for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjqHuE45nXS1 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A95127023 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108158.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2DMTmbq002999; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:29:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=uqst4gdOs4So/OdCBAuapei/M1d3BHeeLt0F+qcQp98=; b=MclFd/3x5Fbn44d6doYn8GNEipzy8mXEkSlnGUAM09S5X50xPbLxzR/qC50eziTuHPPl MxgRbDxzq1ApCVP1yI/8WaTTAiOh5JIRJuh2kBmr1DiZlNw+/HgGGD5+z9uNeqPg43V6 u/1s8AwA4XBPjRoyG5JLbuy7U2t8Qk6ICs6fxsUgGVJFtzbe/AleCZnBD1HECh3xUC6Y 6+5pM0BdNaqllc8utHAVz+YNBiHt8Odc6rX2/v83LMoko4o4hRJfOkjpCh31LM8sOooW Sg90t/nGs0gWfCOXmfAlnliJyqIkWtJkINSoxXZcH2Wm6WeLZ4KVn84AK5x2X2dhkhwP wA==
Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp0048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.48]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gpmskracx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:29:50 -0700
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.240.147) by DM5PR05MB3579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.242.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.588.7; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:29:49 +0000
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d13e:bdcf:3798:c34f]) by DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d13e:bdcf:3798:c34f%2]) with mapi id 15.20.0588.013; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:29:49 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, 'Martin Bjorklund' <mbj@tail-f.com>, "bclaise@cisco.com" <bclaise@cisco.com>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, 'Ignas Bagdonas' <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
Thread-Index: AQHTtoeDudrccbytYUG/6H8xwaQd9KPF+PwAgAB5qID//8zPAIACAkGAgATrngCAAKmpAIAABMIAgAByJwCAADeVAA==
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:29:49 +0000
Message-ID: <A98F0B76-B46F-4FFD-8543-2AE619CB3812@juniper.net>
References: <045201d3b7d7$62c2c6a0$284853e0$@gmail.com> <25C4AC06-F4CB-4303-B19C-CA7BBFEBACD8@juniper.net> <81dbd2c7-2962-12f0-0f58-81a5fbac648f@cisco.com> <20180313.092218.1630545026391500372.mbj@tail-f.com> <007301d3badd$7b300640$719012c0$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <007301d3badd$7b300640$719012c0$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR05MB3579; 7:sdYGYv+sBxqkQGrCPQgh9X35Qn43RhYsUFTewPGCwzw5fre3OCOHagYxr5dNLNuGGE7l6q63plkiuxC1L3QDlIb6b2yVsKn481w/YR2hijuFKjhK91onsjRuQ2jjsZWcmFTv1xrdpNbK8iaRxZjLiXfx5LnHTtqIJpMIPNxW+zwTwwesO09fVd1rjhaOLzZ5bJIxiNUhf0CnsMesWSZXv17qn1IIkygZB9f2OMT9gh+lK+7Sd55AzYdI8pyn0Nwr
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 690c2c6f-a91e-409f-8b40-08d58931ee8c
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR05MB3579:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR05MB3579BF0C760FD1EEC564BB09A5D20@DM5PR05MB3579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(138986009662008)(85827821059158)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231221)(944501244)(52105095)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123558120)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579;
x-forefront-prvs: 0610D16BBE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(39380400002)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(189003)(13464003)(199004)(2900100001)(2906002)(97736004)(66066001)(14454004)(54906003)(110136005)(93886005)(58126008)(6486002)(478600001)(316002)(8676002)(5660300001)(6436002)(966005)(53936002)(575784001)(6306002)(5250100002)(99286004)(6512007)(86362001)(2501003)(25786009)(81156014)(81166006)(82746002)(6246003)(36756003)(83716003)(7736002)(26005)(102836004)(6116002)(3846002)(33656002)(39060400002)(8936002)(305945005)(186003)(229853002)(3660700001)(68736007)(105586002)(76176011)(53546011)(2950100002)(4326008)(59450400001)(6506007)(3280700002)(106356001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579; H:DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: P7AbZ4xur1Sz8/MkTOt98ZSvo+4KmtEIyTrXQmKSTBf20Su+dYUSKyGqpXEb8qJSPEjqmpblarw2BEIxFtAhPe4KIFn1EreWPmK2Z20oZtKgCQmKyxjJU6Iv72P7PwrAwyClAP21AHQlqqYbwJxlsd52YCIOX9AEStr7riNnncAMKsj0BT3sCV/0pbju7Adc4icMJ+IRjUupalqh70eCCLRdBIWeWahHRf9x1bsQpMacdxsN5XQfejb3sEruHHHFFpLfYhP77P+jk5mssafY41PStaadeSS4d5QH6d/qpWxQnZK5Q8lIFMOh6KgsBrSg4stw9A3jv/eft5ziV3nuoA==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EAE3392D91319F4097258B83FAD14A70@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 690c2c6f-a91e-409f-8b40-08d58931ee8c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Mar 2018 22:29:49.0915 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR05MB3579
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-13_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803130248
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/gEHXqZ0nLgbYNoa7_gijFbODEyk>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:30:07 -0000

Fine, but what about the examples that are contained within a draft that defines the YANG module.  Do we expect YANG Doctors to review the examples or not?   What I'm looking for is a definition of what all a YANG Doctor looks at, if anything less than the entire draft.  Can the YANG Doctor function be automated, or is function more than validators could ever hope to do?

K.

=====

As YANG secretary I have an issue with reviewing draft which do not include YANG modules.

> A YANG module has its review criteria defined in YANG RFCs.
> However examples may be manifold and imperfect.

If the group decides to review such documents the review criteria needs to be defined first.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:22 AM
> To: bclaise@cisco.com
> Cc: kwatsen@juniper.net; mersue@gmail.com; yang-doctors@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
> 
> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> > Why not review the document, even if there is no YANG module, and see
> > if there is something to pay attention to? The examples, for example,
> > are important to review and validate.
> 
> Yes, but is this something for the YANG doctors in general?
> 
> In this particular case, it doesn't really matter, since most likely several YDs
> will review the document anyway.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> >
> > Regards, B.
> >
> >
> > > Now that the YD page has been restored, here's what it says:
> > >
> > > """
> > >
> > > What to look for during a review
> > >
> > > The most important item is to give the AD a sense of how important
> > > it is that they pay attention to the document.
> > > For YANG reviews the YANG Doctors will apply the RFC6087bis document
> > > on the Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model
> > > Documents
> > > ​https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis_&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=a93P1wWzQy2YYDl9KQTai1EbHdIRYwH_EwYv-TcUYjU&e=. The
> > > YANG language syntax and semantics should be analyzed. The
> > > compliance with ​Network Management Datastore Architecture should to
> > > be ensured (see also ​NMDA guidelines).
> > >
> > > Review Information
> > >
> > > Under some circumstances, the YANG doctors might discover open
> > > issues or provide feedback worth documenting for the larger
> > > community. While the NETMOD WG still work on RFC6087bis, updating
> > > this document is preferred. If the topic is not appropriate for the
> > > RFC6087bis or if RFC6087bis has already been published, then this
> > > must be documented on the YANG questions/answers WIKI
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_ops_wiki_YANGDoctorsFAQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=s7Yh35PaMXizxNvkc0_aLaDV1FDcJgoj2_IuPiEoRlc&e=DcJgoj2_IuPiEoRlc&e=.
> > >
> > > """
> > >
> > > The scope of the YD's review is unclear.
> > >
> > > K.
> > >
> > >
> > > ===== original message =====
> > >
> > > One question coming up in my mind is against which criteria should
> > > such drafts be reviewed.
> > > A YANG module has its review criteria defined in YANG RFCs.
> > > However examples may be manifold and imperfect.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mehmet
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
> > >> To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>om>; 'Martin Bjorklund'
> <mbj@tail-
> > >> f.com>
> > >> Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I did not start review for netconf-event-notifications-08.
> > >>>
> > >>> Netconf co-chairs: Please clarify whether a review is required.
> > >>
> > >> What's in a YANG Doctor review?  Is it just syntax, or semantics too?
> > >> If it includes semantics, then does that then entail needing to
> > >> read the draft text as well, to determine if the YANG module
> > >> expresses the correct semantics or find that the draft text is
> > >> wrong?  Would it also extend to reviewing the examples in the
> > >> draft, to further ensure that the semantics are understood
> > >> correctly or, possibly, that there is an error in the example?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I am aware that netconf-event-notifications does not define a
> > >> YANG module, but it does have examples that for the YANG modules in
> > >> the
> > >> yang-
> > >> push and subscriber-notifications drafts.  In that sense, I'm
> > >> wondering if they need to be reviewed, or do we expect the YD
> > >> reviewers of those other two drafts to look at this draft already?
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I not talking about what might be found via validation.  I've
> > >> already asked the authors to post a script that validates the 14
> > >> examples in this draft...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> K.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > yang-doctors mailing list
> > > yang-doctors@ietf.org
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_yang-2Ddoctors&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=3pky8v7zSfdi3HNvorvvT3Y60l7ZxfBUm6K8ulTV3r8&e=
> >